July 21, 2008

Great global warming swindle ruled "unfair"

Posted by Andrew at 8:03 PM

The UK regulator Ofcom issued findings today rightfully criticizing, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The Swindle was supposed to be climate change deniers answer to An Inconvenient Truth. Here's the watchdog's main findings:

From the BBC:

The regulator backed Sir David's complaint of unfair treatment, judging that his views were misrepresented and that he was not given the right to reply.

Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been misled as to its intent.

Dr Wunsch, from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said he believed he was being asked to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but "what we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

The Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".

The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not reflect a range of views, as required under the code.

However, the regulator said it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence" - the standard that Ofcom says complaints have to reach.

Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007".

This being so, it says, disputing the scientific link between human activity and climate change does not meet the Broadcasting Code's definition of "controversial".

Eh? What's that last one? I thought the whole point was to be "controversial". Let's have a closer look at that Ofcom ruling...

First off, for those of you who have been lucky enough to never see The Swindle, according to Ofcom:

In the Committee’s view, the programme was a polemic which argued that the theory of man-made global warming had been promoted and funded by politicians and other groups for their own agenda and that the consensus of man-made global warming was based on unsound science.

Riiiight, so that's the kind of people we're dealing with. And yes, I had to look up polemic.

One thing Ofcom did NOT do is rule on the overall accuracy of The Swindle. In fact, they were very clear in saying it's not their job:

However, whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with “due accuracy” there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type.

Back to that "controversial" thing. Here's what Ofcom had to say:

It should be noted from this that there comes a time when an issue that was once a matter of controversy becomes broadly settled, and an overwhelming consensus is formed both – domestically and internationally. For example, while the link between HIV and AIDS was once questioned and could have been considered a matter of political controversy or relating to current public policy, the link is now generally accepted and in most circles is no longer a matter of debate that could be regarded as a matter of political or industrial controversy. In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007.

We are confirmed in this view by noting for example a conclusion of the Stern Review, commissioned by the UK government, which was published in October 2006 and stated:

“An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.” (Our emphasis)

As a result of this review the then Environment Secretary said the Queen's Speech would feature a climate bill to establish an independent Carbon Committee to "work with government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy.” This view of human activity as the major cause of global warming does not appear to be challenged by any of the established political parties or other significant domestic or international institutions.

Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy. Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts.

I've got nothing against controversy. Kind of a fan actually. So I don't care if it's controversial.

But what about true? Accurate? Ofcom specifically does not call the Swindle either. They basically dodge the question. You want to know the truth, you'll have to dig for it yourself.


Here's a few links to get started:

The Ofcom ruling itself.

From The Guardian: "Global warming documentary: The Ofcom report at a glance".

The public has been swindled - Opinion piece by a former IPCC chair.

From the BBC: "Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower". It's by one of the individuals who complained to Ofcom in the first place, and why he did it.

And also from the BBC: "Climate change: The evidence".

Always handy, Grist's, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.

TV interview with The Swindle's writer/director.

Real Climate: Swindled! (Old post with an exhaustive discussion thread.)

Sydney Morning Herald - Climate program swindled viewers

New Scientist: Climate change: who is swindling who?

In depth analysis of the Ofcom ruling.


And, to wrap up, from the International Herald Tribune article:

In a statement, Martin Rees, the president of Britain's Royal Society, the world's oldest scientific academy, did not directly criticize the ruling, but harshly attacked the film. "TV companies occasionally commission programs just to court controversy," he said. "But to misrepresent the evidence on an issue as important as global warming was surely irresponsible."

Posted by Andrew on July 21, 2008 8:03 PM |

Comments

I failed to speak up when I saw the Swindle DVD in my local DVD store recently. I now have written to them. You should too: http://greendaniel.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-swindle-swindle.html

Posted by: DanielMittler | July 22, 2008 10:22 AM